This sounds like the old, “The Second Amendment only means muskets” argument.
By that logic, the First Amendment should only apply to the things that actually come out of your mouth or are put down in print. That’s the way it
was when they wrote it.

But this is now. Your posts here and any blog, text-message, e-mail, v-mail, fax, IM, or cell-phone conversation should be open to examination and
censure by the government.
After all, the Founding Fathers never imagined that such methods of communication could be used to plan terrorist attacks upon us or enable
conspirators to commit any number of crimes by their use. Just like an M-16 can mow down a schoolroom of children a cell-phone call can enable the
destruction of a skyscraper. But those old fuddies didn’t have the advantage of hindsight like those of us so enlightened. So, you’re right, and
using your logic, I am just as right in saying the First Amendment is “an anachronism” as well and should be redacted from the Constitution as
soon as possible. There are other items it contains that I’m sure will not bear much scrutiny when viewed with the rationality of modern thought.
Obviously, the Constitution is nothing more than outmoded thought and needs to get with the times. This is great! With two enlightened minds such as
ours and a fervent passion for “updating” the Constitution, we should be able to make short work of the whole scrap of it.

I think there is definitely something wrong with America's lack of gun control (as an American), but I can't think of a fair solution without a
direct repeal of one of our so-celebrated rights in the Bill, which I think is an unacceptable action.

The problem of violence in America is not due to guns... the problem stems from the American worship of violence. Given that kind of culture, violence
is going to be pandemic... if not guns, then knives or clubs.

Think about violence compared to, lets say nudity. Anybody can see a ton of pretty extreme violence any night of the week on any television in the
land. Yet one bared female breast gets censored. Remember the flap about Janet Jackson? A huge deal that her breast was exposed. But hardly a word
about the symbolic rape that was being portrayed at the time. Nor the violence inherent in football (I am not knocking football... I am pointing out
the different attitudes in mainstream American culture regarding violence and nudity/sex).

The mainstream American culture worships violence. That worship has begotten a violent culture.

This action by the SCOTUS is one of the few, the very few, things the current court has gotten right.

It's the same tired arguments, but here they are, anyway:

- People who use guns in an illegal manner do not care if it is illegal to have them in the first place.

- Gun bans simply do not work. Drugs are banned, and are available pretty much anywhere one wants to get them. If guns are banned, it will be, and has
been, the same.

- Criminals' biggest fear is not encountering police... it is encountering an armed citizen.

- The huge majority of firearm owners are law abiding citizens.

- More crimes are prevented each year by armed citizens than are committed by armed criminals.

- There is a general reverse ratio relationship between tight gun control and high crime areas... the classics are NYC and Wash DC, with tight gun
control and high crime rates, and Tucson, with relatively free gun ownership and relatively low crime.

One reason for the Second Amendment is to help Americans guard against tyranny, both from within and without the country. Many people say it can't
happen here, but given a disarmed populace, what is to prevent a power-mad administration from just tossing out the rest of the Constitution... like
that pesky limit on the number of presidential terms?

I know of very few totalitarian countries that also had a well-armed general populace. I know of several where the general populace has no arms.

The fair solution is you take responsibility for your own actions. That is, you have the right to have a gun but if you should use it wrongly then you
should be punished. Just as if you should abuse alcohol, your children or the internet you should be punished as well.

There are legions of people out there who have grown up with guns and have NEVER used them to commit ANY crime. I stand as one of them. Should my
rights be taken away because someone, somewhere has?

By that same vein, I have never used the internet to sell narcotics or dispense child-pornography. Should my internet access be limited or taken away
because someone else has?

If you start deciding to take away rights from everyone because someone abused that particular right then no right is secure. There are lots of ways
to abuse any right we have and if we start letting the abusers define which rights should remain then we allow the lowest common denominator to
determine the standards of our society and freedoms. That is a colossal error.

I agree, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment...and then we should immediately replace it with another that provides an even stronger protection for
the rights of individual gun owners.

A gun ban will not work. Afterall, how well did Prohibition work? How well has the so-called war on drugs worked? Neither have and neither would
this. It would do nothing to stem the importation of illegal weapons into the country while also very likely leading to the illegal manufacture of
such weapons within US borders.

Ultimately, the only purpose of a gun ban is to remove these weapons from the hands of law-abiding citizens who have no intention of
committing crimes in the first place. This isn't about controlling crime, its about controlling the general public.

The article talks about only using the last 14 words of the second Amendment, but too many people (IMO) would like to concentrate ONLY on the first
13. And neither is fair, in my opinion. The article states that the founding fathers could have used an editor. As if they didn't think long and hard
about how to precisely word this one Amendment. Sounds to me as those who wrote the article have an agenda. Advocating editing the Bill of Rights?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

It's clear as crystal that the right of the people (not Militia members) shall not be infringed. Because a well-regulated Militia (made up of
those people) is necessary to the security of a free State. So, at some point, IF the security of the free State is threatened, the PEOPLE can form a
Militia, and with their arms, secure the free State.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Sounds to me as those who wrote the article have an agenda. Advocating editing the Bill of Rights?

Well of course they are editing it, bit by bit. Along with footnotes, addendums, exclusions, exceptions, considerations, pending approvals and limited
warranties. That’s the tactic: don’t attack the whole elephant up front but weaken him with darts and barbs until he can’t stand anymore - then
carve him up for good! We see it all the time, from the redefinition of “public good” in Eminent Domain cases to the redefinition of “secure”
in your homes and papers viz. the Patriot Act. Virtually every aspect of the Constitution is under attack from all different kinds of angles. I
can’t stand it when more people come up with ideas on how to tinker with it some more, based on their own personal peccadilloes.
But the truth is, some people are afraid of the Constitution (even though they can’t see or admit it) because along with it’s freedoms it
brings a whole lot of burdens to preserve it. Many today, including members of our own illustrious Supreme Court, want to remove some of that burden
from you in their benevolence. Unfortunately, that burden also contains some gold in it. By relieving you of your “burden” they’ll also relieve
you of your treasure.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.